Collussion?
Here is a 2+2 rant. I just do not see where the colluding is? Is it me? It seems like the typical - Bluffalo, lucky-bitch play I see at alot of high level games. Betting alot on overs, draws, etc.. I would have read all 32 pages of 2+2 monkeys ranting and congratulating each other on finding a cheater but umm.. half the posts were "Ya dude" and the other half were "How the hell can you not see this collussion!". Err. What am I missing? Any *cough* cheaters understand why someone would think this was collussion?
i have a shitload of work to do so of course i start sweating the ub 300/600 game. everything seemed normal. no big pots recently, no huge suckouts, no signs of tilt
then this happens. A is a very well-known online high limit player. B seems to be playing ok too though i have not seem him around. C is the victim and from watching, he seems to be a huge LAG. he accused them of cheating after the hand and immediately left.
i am posting this because it's extremely disconcerting. i could understand how A and B would think that C doesn't have much of a hand since he's so aggressive when he does. but even if C folded, B would've had to fold and it would've looked terrible. i can't imagine good players could be this stupid.
i'll admit i don't know how these games play but this defies all logic
Hand #30428937-13526 at Owen Sound ($300/$600 Hold'em)
Powered by UltimateBet
Started at 02/Apr/06 05:22:12
C is at seat 0 with $31183.
A is at seat 2 with $15011.50.
B is at seat 3 with $22025.
FooledUB is at seat 4 with $61296.
The button is at seat 3.
FooledUB posts the small blind of $150.
C posts the big blind of $300.
C: -- --
A: -- --
B: -- --
FooledUB: -- --
Pre-flop:
A raises to $600. B re-raises to $900.
FooledUB folds. C calls. A
re-raises to $1200. B calls. C calls.
Flop (board: 5c 4d 9d):
C checks. A bets $300. B
raises to $600. C calls. A calls.
Turn (board: 5c 4d 9d 2s):
C checks. A bets $600. B
raises to $1200. C calls. A
re-raises to $1800. B calls. C calls.
River (board: 5c 4d 9d 2s 7h):
C checks. A bets $600. B
raises to $1200. C calls. A folds.
Showdown:
B shows Jh 8h.
B has Jh 8h 5c 9d 7h: jack high.
C shows 5d 7d.
C has 5d 7d 5c 9d 7h: two pair, sevens and fives.
Hand #30428937-13526 Summary:
$2 is raked from a pot of $13950.
C wins $13948 with two pair, sevens and fives.
----------------------------------------------------------------
posted by SirFWALGMan at
9:01 AM
8 Comments:
I don't get it either. Because Player A folded at the end means they cheated? Guy probably had A K and realized he was beat.
Personally I wouldn't have been playing with 7 5 either but I don't play short handed games like this.
9:41 AM
...Bluffalo, lucky-bitch play...
Hilarious! I'm gonna have to use that one...
As for the whole collusion thing, I'm with you. Maybe those guys are just used to playing with rocks or something. I see this type of crap all the time.
Who cares if a guy capped on the turn with a draw? What's the difference between capping on the turn on a draw in limit and pushing all-in on the turn with a draw in NL?
Plus, I think half the posters at 2+2 are full o' sh*t! If that many people were good enough to play the $300/$600 or even have enough sense to comment on the play, there'd be a hell of a lot more high-stakes tables running.
I'd make a joke about collusion here but I don't want the 2+2 Gestapo on my ass...
10:11 AM
There’s definitely something fishy going on here. Look at this ridiculous hand, Player A bets and Player B raises with a backdoor straight and J high on the flop and yet, he keeps sticking in raises with Jack high when his straight draw dies? And if Player’s A hand was good enough to bet all the way to the river, why fold in this huge pot for more one bet? If he has AK here, he still has to call. It’s either collusion or extreme mental retardation.
Player C should have three bet and capped these mofos through and through with his pair+flush draw on the flop though.
10:51 AM
I dunno I think calling down with J high at least is suspicious? But really I could care more about the lint between my toes than a game I would probably never play in.
12:08 PM
What I see in a few simple sentences.
Everytime A opens the betting, then B re-raises.
B has J high and loses any chance of a backdoor on the turn, yet still raises on the turn.
C hits 2 pair on the river and only calls.
I guess I have a criminal mind, because that seems like a textbook collusion between B and C with A being the victim.
Either that or B is a total moron.
However, it obviously takes numerous instances like this for anyone to make an accusation.
12:59 PM
I'm a moron.......I misread. C is the accusing?
Wow......no idea on that.
1:01 PM
"C is the victim and from watching, he seems to be a huge LAG. he accused them of cheating after the hand and immediately left."
um, did he not just win a huge hand?
1:27 PM
Yeah, that whole post makes no fucking sense. There's idiots at every level. I don't see any real evidence of cheating here.
2:56 PM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home